defense mitt romney's potential commander in chief. mitt romney has gained in the polls on that dimension. he might only be able to focus on the economy during the last couple of weeks. this is a forum that is inherently hard to be aggressive in. you're sitting down around a table with the moderator. keep in mind that we'll probably have reduced audiences because of "monday night football" and baseball games tonight. so the question is is this going to have an impact? and can president obama make it have an impact? >> actually, i feel bad for "monday night football." that's how bad the ratings are going to be. because of the subject matter, it inherently favors the sitting president. >> i think it would have inherently favored president obama had it not been for the benghazi business. the benghazi business has changed foreign policy. i think that's a big problem.

>> how do you think he's going to answer the benghazi question? >> i don't know. there are people writing timelines, there are people parsing through the intelligence. i also want to see how much romney turns a foreign policy debate into an economic policy debate. >> i think one of the issues may be romney distinguishing himself from president obama. actually, we a grgree on this policy. >> here's the final debate of the 2012 presidential campaign. here's bob schiefer of cbs news. >> good evening from the campus of lynn university here in boca raton, florida. this is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign brought to you by the division of presidential debates. this one is on foreign policy.

the questions are mine and i have not shared them with the candidates or their aides. the audience has taken a vow of silence. no applause, no reaction of any kind except right now when we welcome president barack obama and governor mitt romney. [ applause ] gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. they've asked me to divide the evening into segments. i'll pose a question at the beginning of each segment.

you will each have two minutes to respond and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment. tonight's debate, as both of you know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that president kennedy told the world that the soviet union had installed nuclear missiles in cuba. perhaps the closest we've ever got to nuclear war. and it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. so let's begin. the first segment is the challenge of a changing middle east and the new face of terrorism. i'm going to put this into two segments so you'll have two topic questions within this one segment on the subject. the first question, and it concerns libya, the controversy over what happened there continues. four americans are dead

including an american ambassador. questions remain. what happened? what caused it? was it spontaneous? was it an intelligence failure? was it a policy failure? was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened? governor romney, you said this was an example of an american policy in the middle east that is unraveling before our very eyes. i'd like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that. gov f governor romney, you won the toss, you go first. >> thank you, bob. thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. mr. president, it's good to be with you again. we were together at a humorous event a little earlier and it's nice to maybe be funny this time, but not on purpose. we'll see what happens. this is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world. and to america in particular, which is to see a complete change in the structure and the environment in the middle east.

with the arab spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, an opportunity for greater participation for women and economic life in the middle east. but, instead, we've seen in nation after nation, a number of disturbing events. in syria, we see 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. we see in libya, an attack, apparently, by -- well, i think we know now by terrorists of some kind against our people there, four people dead. our hearts and minds go to them. ma will recolle mali has been taken over by al-qai al-qaida-type individuals. so what we're seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal on the hopes we had for that region. the greatest threat of all is iran, four-years closer to a nuclear weapon. and we're going to have to recognize that we have to -- do as the president's done.

i congratulate him on taking out osama bin laden and going after the leadership in al-qaida. but we can't kill our way out of this mess. we're going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of islam and other parts of the world reject this violent, radical extremism. it's certainly not on the run. it's soernly not hiding. this is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to america, long term. and we must have a comprehensive strategy to reject this kind of extremism. >> mr. president? >> well, my first job as commander in chief, bob, is to keep the american people safe. that's what we've done in the last four years. we ended the war in iraq. woe focused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. as a consequence, al-qaida's core leadership has been transcended.

we're able to transition out of afghanistan in a responsible way making sure that afghans take responsibililility for themselv. that allows us to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. now, with respect to libya, as i indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, i immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those americans who are still in harm's way. number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened. and number three, most importantly, we would go after those who killed americans and bri bring them to justice. i think it's important to think about what happened in libya. keep in mind that i, and americans, took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that

we we were able to, without putting troops on the ground, liberate a country that had been under the yolk of dictatorship for 40 years. god rid of a despite who killed americans. despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of libyans marching and saying, "america is our friend. we stand with them." now, that rep sethat represents opportunity we have to take advantage of. governor romney, you agree that we were successful in going after al-qaida. i have to tell you, your strategy, previously, has been one that is all over the map and is not designed to keep americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the middle east. >> well, my strategy is pretty straight forward, which is to go after the bad guys. to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to kill them, to take them out of the picture. but my strategy is broader than that.

that's important, of course. but the key that we're going to have to pursue is a pathd wway get the muslim world to reject extremism on its own. we don't want another iraq. we don't want another afghanistan. that's not the right course for us. the right course is to go after the people who are leaders of these anti-american groups and these jihadists. and also help the muslim world. who do we do that? a group of scholars got together to look at how we can help the world reject these terrorists. so the answer they came up with was this. one more economic development. we should keep our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment and that of our friends. we should coordinate it to make sure we push back and give them more economic development. number two, better education. number three, gender equality. number four, the rule of law. what's been happening over the last couple of years, it's as we watched this release, this

rising tide of chaos occur. you see al-qaida rushing in. you see other jihadis groups rushing in. they're throughout many nations in the middle east. it's wonderful that libya seems to be making some progress, despite this tragedy. egypt with an 80 million population, we want to make sure that we're seeing progress throughout the middle east. with syria having asad continuing to kill -- to murder his own people, this is a region -- and, of course, iran, on the path to nuclear weapon -- >> we'll get to that. but let's give the president a chance. >> governor romney, i'm glad that you recognized that al-qaida was a threat. a few months ago when you asked what's the biggest gop threat facing america, you said russia. not al-qaida, russia. they're calling to ask for their foreign policy back.

the cold waur has been over for 20 years. but, governor, when it comes to foreign policy, you seem to want to report foreign policy of the 1980s, just like the social policy ins the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. you say you're not interested in duplicating what happened in iraq. but just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in iraq right now. the challenge we have -- i know you haven't been in position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong. you said we should have gone into iraq. despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. you said that we should still have troops in iraq to this day. you indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with russia, despite the fact that 71 senators, democrats and republicans, voted for it. you've said that, first, we

shoud n should not have a timeline in afghanistan and then you said we should. now you say maybe or it depends. it means you were not only wrong but sending mixed messages to our troops and allies. so what we need to do with respect to the middle east is strong, steady leadership. not long and reckless leadership that is all over the map. unfortunately, that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout the campaign. it is not a recipe for americans' strength. >> i'm going to end in a couple of minutes here to give you a chance to respond. >> well, of course i don't concur about what the president said about my own record and the things that i have said. they don't happen to be accurate. but what i can say is that we're talking about the middle east and how to help the middle east reject the kind of terrorism and the rising tide of confusion. attacking me is not agenda. attacking me is not dealing with

the challenges in the middle east and take advantage of the opportunity there and stem the tide of this vie lensz. but i'll respond to a couple of things you mentioned. russia, i believe you indicated, is a gegeopolitical faux. and in the same paragraph, i said and iran is the greatest national security threat we face. russia does continue to battle us in the u.n. time and time again. i have clear eyes on this. i'm not going to wear rose-co r rose-colored glasses when it comes to russia. an i'm certainly not going to say i'll give you more flexibility after the election. number two is iraq. you and i agreed that there should be a status of forces agreement. >> what i would not have done is left 10,000 troops in iraq that would tie us down. that certainly would not help us in the middle east. >> i'm sorry, there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement and i concurred

in that and say we should have some number of troops that stayed on. that was something i concurred with. that was your posture and that was my posture, as well. >> this is just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in iraq. >> no, i didn't. i'm sorry. i indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces greemt at t agreement at the end of the conflict that existed. >> governor, here's one thing i've learned as commander in chief. you've got to be clear both to our allies and our enemyinies at where you stand and what you mean. you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in iraq. that is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the middle ooegs. it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. so what i've done throughout my presidency and will continue to do, is, number one, make sure

that these countries are supporting our counter terrorism efforts. number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in israel's security. it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region. number three, we have to make sure that we're protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can't develop unless all the population is developing. number four, we do have to develop their economic capableties. but number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can't continue do do nation-building in these regions. part of american leadership is to ensure that we're doing nation-building at home. that will help us maintain the kind of american leadership that we need. >> let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the middle east and so on. that is you both alluded to this and that is syria. war in syria has spilled over to

lebanon. we have a hundred people that were kid e killed there with a bomb. there were demonstrations there. eight people did. mr. president, it's been four years since you said asad had to duo. we've had 300,000 refrefugees, war goes on. should we reassess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events and is that even possible? you go first, sir. >> what we've done is organize the international community saying asad has to go. woe eve mobilized sanctions against that government. we have made sure that they are isolated. we have provided humanitarian assistance and we're particularly sure that we're immobilizing the moderate forces inside of syria. but, ultimately, syrians are going to have to determine their own future. so everything we're doing, we're

doing in consultation with our partners and the region, including israel which has a huge interest in what happens with syria. coordinating with turkey and other great regions that have an interest in this. now, what we're seeing taking place in syria is heartbreaking. that's why we're going to do everything that we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition chl. we also have to recognize that for us to get more entangled in syria is a serious step. we have to make certain that we know who we are help g. that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region. and i am confident that asad's days are numbered. what we can't do is simply suggest, which governor romney has suggested at times, is a

simple proposition to be safer over a long term. >> well, let's step back and take a look at what's happening in syria and how important it is. first of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. syria plays an important role in the middle east. syria is iran's only ally in the arab world. it's their route to the see. and so seeing syria remove asad is a very high priority for us. number two, seeing a replacement government including responsible people is credit kal for us. we don't want to get drawn into a conflict. we want to identify responsible parties within syria, organize them, bring them together in a form of -- if not government, a form of counsel that could take

the lead in syria and then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. we do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the wrong hands. those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. we need to make sure that we coordinate this effort. but the turks are all very concerned about this. they're willing to work with us. we need to have a very effective leadership effort in syria making sure that the insurgence there are armed and that the insurgence who become armed are people who will be the responsible parties. recognize, i believe that asad must go. i believe he will go. but i believe we want to make sure that we have the relationships, the friendship of people to take his place such that in the years to come, we see syria as a friend. and syria as a responsible party in the middle east. this is a critical opportunity for america. what i'm afraid of is first,

we'll let the u.n. deal with it. and then they said we're going to try to have a cease fire. that didn't work. and then they looked to the russians and said let's see if you can do something. we should be playing the leadership role there. not on the ground with military. >> we are playing leadership roles. we organized the friends of syria. we are mobilizing humanitarian support and support for the opposition. and we are making sure that those we help will be friendsover ofriends of ours in the long term. going back to libya, because this is an example of how we make choices, you know, when we went into libya, and we were able to immediately stop the s massacre there, we also mad to make sure that gadhafi didn't stay there. and, to the governor's credit, you stated the coalition that we

organized. but when it came time to making sure that gadhafi didn't stay in power, that he was captured, governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creek. that this was mission muddle. imagine if we had pulled out at that point? gadhafi had more american blood on his hands than any individual other than osama bin laden. so we were going to be sure that we finished the job. that's part of the reason why the libyans stand with us. but we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with. that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with. and we had to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to syria. that's exactly what we're doing. >> governor, could i just ask you, would you go beyond what the administration could do? for example, would you put in no-fly zones over syria? >> i don't want to have our military involved in syria.

i don't think there's necessity to put our military in syria at this stage. i don't anticipate that in the future. as i indicated, our objectives are to replace asad and to have him place a new government, which is friendsly to us, a responsible government, if possible. and i want to make sure they get armed and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves, but, also, to remove asad. but i do not want to see a military involvement on the part of our troops -- >> well -- >> and this isn't going to be necessary. we have with our partners in the region, we have sufficient resources to support those groups. but this has been going on for a year. this should have been a time for american leadership. we should have taken a leading role, not militarily, but a leading role governmentally to bring together the parties there to find responsible parties. as you hear, even from intelligence sources today, the insurgence are highly desperate. they haven't come together. they vnt formed a unity group, a

council of some kind. that needs to happen. america can make that happen. and we need to make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the important role. >> i want to ask -- >> i'll be very quick. what you just heard governor romney said is he doesn't have different ideas. and that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote moderate syrian leadership and an effective transition so that we get asad out. that's the kind of leadership we've shown. that's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show. >> may i ask you, during the egyptian turmoil, there came a point where you said it was time for the president to go. someone in your administration thought, perhaps, we should have waited a while on that. do you have any regrets about that? >> no, i don't. i think america has to stand with democracy. the notion that we would have tanks run over those young

people who were in terrier square, that is not the kind of american leadership that john f. kennedy talked about 50 years ago. but what i've also said is that now that you have a democratically elected government in egypt, they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities. and we have put significant pressure on them to make sure that they're doing that. to recognize the rights of women, which is critical throughout the region. these countries can't develop if young women are not given the type of education they need. they have to abide by their treaty with israel. that is a red line for us. not only is israel's security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels. they have to make sure that they're cooperating with us when et koccomes to counter terroris. and we will help them with respect to developing their own economy. what's going to make the egyptian revolution successful for the people of egypt, but

al also, for the world, those young people who have gathered there are seeing opportunities. they want jobs. they want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school. they want to make sure that they have a roof over their heads and that they have the prospects of a better life in the future. and, so, one of the things that we've been doing is, for example, organizing conferences with these egyptianinss to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that's non-corrupt, that's transparent. but what is also important for us to understand is that for america to be successful in this region, there's some things that we'll have to do at home here as well. one of the challenges over the last decade is we've done experiments in nation-building in places like iraq and afghanistan. and we've neglected, for example, developing our own economy. our own energy sectors, our own education system. and it's very hard for us to

project leadership around the world. >> governor romney, i want to hear your response to that. but would you have stuck with mobari? >> no, i believe as the president indicated and said at the time, that i supported his aex there. i felt that ds-- i wish we woul have had a better vision of the future. i think looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that, to recognize that there was a growing passion for energy and freedom in that part of the world and we would have worked aggressively with our other friends to have them make the transition so that it didn't explode in the way it did. but once it exploded, i felt the same as the president did which is these freedom voices and the streets of egypt where the people who were speaking of our principles and the president had done things which were unimaginable. and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support. let me step back and talk about what i think our mission

has to be in the middle east and even manufacture broadly. because our purpose is to make sure that the world is peaceful. we want a peaceful planet. we want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they're going to have a bright, prosperous future and not be at war. that's our purpose. and the mantle is falling to america. it's an honor that we have it. but for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong. that begins with a strong economy here at home. and, tunaunfortunately, we've go be stronger. when he said our det makes us not a great country, that he's a bik thing. former chiefs of staff said that our det is the biggest national security threat we face. we have weakened our economy. we need to have a strong military. our military is second to none in the world. we're blessed with terrific

soldiers and extraordinary technology and intelligence. but the idea of budget cuts to the military would change that. we need to have strong allies. our association and connection with allies is essential to americans' strength. we're the great nation that has 42 allies and friends around the wourld. if we're strong in each of those things, american influence will grow. but, unfortunately, nowhere in the world is america's influence greater today than it was four years ag. and that's because -- >> you're going to get a chance to respond to that because that's a perfect segway into our next segment. and that is what is america's role in the world? and that is the question. what do each of you see as our role in the world. i believe, governor romney, it's your turn to go first. >> i absolutely believe that america has a responsibility and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the

principles that make the world more peaceful. and those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections, because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. they don't vote for war. we want to promote those principles throughout the world. we recognize that there are places of conflict in the world. we want to end those con flifli to the extent humanly possible. but in order to fulfill our role in the world, america must be strong. america must lead. and for that to happen, we have to strengthen our economy here at home. you can't have 23 million people struggling to get a job. you can't have an economy, that over the last three years, keeps slowing down its growth rate. you can't have kids coming out of college, half of whom can't find a job today or a job that's commensurate with their college degree. we have to get our economy going chl . and our military. we don't know what the world is

going to throw at us down the road. we make decisions today in a military that will confront challenges that we can't imagine. in the 2000 debates, there was no mention of ter rechl. and a year later, 9/11 happened. i will not cut our military budget. we have to standby our allies. i think the tension that existed between israel and the united states was very unfortunate. i think that also, pulling our missile defense out of poland in the way we did was also unfortunate in terms of, if you will, disrupting the relationship as it stands between us. when the students took to the streets in teheran and the people there protested, the green revolution occurred. for the president to be silent, i thought, was an enormous mistake. we have to stand for our principles. stand for allies. stand for strong military. and stand for a stronger economy.

>> mr. president? >> america remains the one indispensable nation. and the world needs a strong america abnd it is stronger now than when i came into aufgs. because we ended the war in iraq, we were able to refocus our attention in not only the terrorist threat, but also beginning a transition process from afghanistan chl. it also allowed us to refocus aliengs on relationships that have been neglected for a decade. governor romney, our alliances have never been stronger. in asia,africa, with i real where we had unprecedented military and sbel jenls cooperation including dealing with the iranian threat. we've been able to rebuild so that we can start rebuilding america. that's what my plan does. making sure that we're bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we're creating jobs here as we've done with the

auto-industry. making sure that we've got the best education system in the world, including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. doing everything we can to control our own energy. we've cut our oil imports. cleaner eere energy technologi. that's the kind of leadership that we've got to show. unfortunately, governor romney's plan doesn't do it. we need to do it in a more responsible way. also, asking to pay a little bit more. that way we can invest in the research of technology that's always kept us at the cutting edge. governor romney has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. he has proposed long and reckless policies.

he's praised george bush as a good ek no, ma'ameconomic stewa. that is not the way that we're going to maintain leadership in the 21st century. >> governor romney, wrong and reckless policy sns. >> i've got a policy for the future and agenda for the future. when it comes to our economy here at home, i know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay. the president said by now we'd be at 5.4% unemployment. we're 9 million jobs short of that. i will get america working again and see rising take-home pay with five simple steps. number one, north american energy independence. we're going to take full advantage of coal, gas, renewables.

we can do better than that. particularly in latin america. the tunts for us in latin america, we have just not taken advantage of. as a matter of fact, latin america's economy is almost as big as the economy of china. latin america is a huge opportunity for us. time zone, language opportunities, number three, we're going to have to have training programs that work for our workers and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the kids first and the teacher's union is going to have to go behind. and then we're going to have to get to a balanced budget. we can't expect entrepreneurs and businesses large and small to take their life savings or their company's money and invest in america if they think we're headed to the road to greece. and that's where we're going right now unless we get off this spending and borrowing bunch. and, finally, number five, we've got to champion small business. small businesses where jobs come from. two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses.

new business formation is down at the lowest level in 30 years under this administration. i want to bring it back and get back good jobs and rising take-home pay. >> let's talk about what we need to come peet. governor romney talks about small businesses, but, governor, when you were in massachusetts, small businesses development ranked about 48 out of 50 states in massachusetts. the policies that you're promoting don't help small businesses. the way you define small businesses include folks at the very top. they include you and me. but let's take an example that we know is going to make a difference in the 21st century and that's our education policy. we didn't have a chance to talk about this in the last debate. under my leadership, what we've done is reformed education, working with governors, 46 statings. we've seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time and they're starting to finally make progress. and what i now want to do is to

hire more teachers, education specially in math and science, and they know that we've fallen behind when it comes to math and science. and those teachers can make a dimpx. governor romney, when you were asked by teachers if you thought this was going to help the economy grow, you said it's not going to help the economy grow. when you were asked about class size, you said it won't make a difference. if you talk to teachers, they will tell you it does make a difference. if we've got math teachers who were able to provide the kind of support we need for our kids, that's what's going to determine whether or not the new businesses are created here, companies are going to low kcat here depending on whether or not we've got the highly skilled work force and the kinds of budgets that we put forward. when we're nothd asked to pay a dime more but, instead, we slash support for education, that's undermining our long-term competitiveness. that is not good for america's position in the world. and the world notices.

>> let me get back to foreign policy. can i just get back -- >> well, i need to speak a moment if you'll let me, bob, about education because i'm so proud of the state that i had a chance to be governor of. we have, every two years, tests that look at how well our kids are doing. fourth graders and eighth graders are tested in english and math. our fourth graders, number one in english and math. aigts graders, number one in english and math. republicans came together on a bipartisan basis that focused on having great teachers in the classroom. >> ten years earlier disturb. >> that was what allowed us to become the number one state in the nation. >> but that was ten years before you took office and then you cut education spending. >> and we kept our schools number one in the nation. they're still number one today. and the principles that we put in place, we also gave kids not

just a graduation exam that determined whether they were up to the skills needed to be able to compete, but, also, if they graduated in the top quarter of their class, they got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any massachusetts public institution of higher learning. >> that happened before you came in office. >> that was actually mine, mr. president. you got that fact wrong. >> we have heard this in some of the debates. governor, you say you want a big other military. you want a bigger navy. you don't want to cut defense spending. what i want to ask you, we were talking about financial problems in this country, where are you going to get the money? >> well, let's come back and talk about the military. first of all, we're going to cut about five percent of the discretionary budget, excludeing military. that's number one. >> but can you do this without driving -- >> the good news is i'll be happy to have you take a look. come on our web site. you'll look at how we're going to get to a balanced budget within 8-10 years.

we do it by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. by the way, number one thing i get rid of is obama care. there are a number of things that sound good, but frankly, we just can't afford them. i get rid of that from day one. we take program after program that we don't absolutely have to have. and we get rid of them. number two, we take some programs that we are going to keep, like medicaid, which is a program for the poor. or take that health care program from the poor and give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently. as a governor, i thought, please, give me this program. i could run this more efficiently than the federal government. and states, by the way, are proving it. states like arizona, rhode island have taken these medicaid dollars and have shown they can run these programs more cost effectively. -- >> bob? >> it gets us to a balanced

buj budget within 8-10 years. >> that's what i'm getting to. >> he should have answered the first question. look, governor romney's call for $5 trillion in tax cuts that he says he's going to pay for by closing deductions. the math doesn't work, but he continues to claim that he's going to do it. he then wants to spend $2 trillion on military spending that our military is not asking for. keep in mind, our military spending has gone up every single year that i've been in office. we spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. china, russia, france, the unitunite united kingdom, you name it. next ten, what i did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe. and that's the budget put forward. but what you can't do is spends $2 trillion in additional military spending that the

military is not asking for, $5 trillion on tax cuts. ewe say that you're going to pay for it by closing loopholes in deductions, without naming what those loopholingses in dedictio are. and then, somehow, you're going to deal with the deficit that we've already got. the math simply doesn't work. but when it comes to military, what we have to think about is not just budgets. we need to be thinking about capableties. we need to think about cyber security. we need to think about space. that's what our budget does, but it's driven by strategy. not bepolitics or members of congress and what they'd like to see. it's what do we need to keep americans safe. and then it also allows us to reduce our deaf sit, which is a significant, national security concern because we've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can

project military power overseas. >> bob, i'm pleased that i balance budgets. i was in the world of business for 20 years. if you didn't balance your budget, you went out of business. i had the chance to be governor of state. four years in a row, democrats and republicans came together to balance the bungt. we cut taxes 19 times and balanced our budget. the president hasn't balanced a budget yet. let's talk about military spending. >> 30 seconds. >> our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. the navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. we're now at 285. we're headed down to the low 200s if we go to sequestration. i want to make sure we have the ships that are required by our navy. our air force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947. we've changed for the first time since f.d.r.

since f.d.r., we've always had the strategy saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. now we're changing to one conflict. this, in my opinion, is the highest responsibility of the united states which is to maintain the safety of the american people. i will not cut our military budget by a trillion as well as the sequestration cuts. that, in my view, is making our future less certain and less secure. >> bob, i just need to comment on this. fist of all, the sequester is not something that i proposed, it's something that congress proposed. it will not happen. the budget is not reducing our military spending, it's maintaining them. i think governor romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. you mentioned the navy and that we have fewer ships than we did since 1916. well, governor, we have fewer horses and bayonets because the

military changes. and so the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting ships. it's what are our capableties. so when i sit down with the secretary of navy and the joint chiefs of staff, we determine how are we going to be best-able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. and that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you're putting forward. it just doesn't work. we visited the web site quite a bit and it still doesn't work. >> a lot to cover. i'd like to move to the next secment. redlines: israel and iran. and you'll have two minutes. president obama, you can go first on this one.

would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on israel is an attack to the united states which is the same promise to our close allies, like japan. if you made such a declaration, wouldn't deter iran? it certainly deterred the soviet union for a long time when we made that promise to our allies. >> first of all, israel is a true friend. it is our greatest ally in the region. if israel is attacked, america will stand with israel. i've made that clear throughout my presidency. >> so you're saying we've already made that declaration? >> i will stand with israel if they are attacked. and this is the reason why working with israel, we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history. in fact, this week, we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with israel in history. this very week.

but, to the issue of iran, as long as i'm president of the united states, iran will not get a nuclear weapon. i made that clear when i came into office. we then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against iran in history. and it is crippling their economy. their currency has dropped 80%. their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with iraq 20 years ago. so their economy is in a shambles. and the reason we did this is because a nuclear iran is a threat to our national security and it's a threat to israel's national security. but we cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. that's unacceptable. and they have said they want to see israel wiped off the map. so the work that we've done, with respect to sanctions, now

offers iran a choice. they can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program. or they will have to face a united world and a united states president, me, who said we're not going to take any options off the table. the disgreemtagreement i have w governor romney is he's said we should take premature military action. i think that would be a mistake. when i've sent young men and women into harm's way, i always understood that that is the last resort. not the first resort. >> two minutes. >> first of all, i want to underscore the same point the president made. which is that if i'm president of the united states -- when i'm president of the united states, we will stand with israel. and if israel is attacked, we have their back. not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. that's number one. number two with regards to iran and the threat of iran.

there's no question but that iran and nuclear-capable iran is unacceptable. it presents a threat to our friends and to us for iran to have nuclear weapons to be used against us or to be used to threaten us. it's also essential to understand what our mission is in iran. that is to dissuade iran through peaceful and diplomatic means. peaceful sanctions is something that i called for five years ago. crippling sanctions were number one. and they do work. you're seeing it right now in the economy. absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions. i would have put them in place earlier, but it's good that we have them. number two, something i would added to is i would tighten those sanss. i would say that ships that carry iranian oil couldn't go. people who are trading their oil can't. i would tighten those sanctions

further. separately, i'd take on diplomatic isolation efforts. his words amount to genocide in citation. i would indict him for it. i would also make sure that their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world. the same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of south africa. we need to increase pressure time and time again on iran because anything other than a solution to this which stops this, this nuclear folly of theirs, is unacceptable to america. a military action is the last resort. gigi. it is something that one can only consider if all of the other avenues had been tried to their full extent. >> let me ask both of you, as you know, there are reports that are on in the united states as part of an international group agreed in principle to talk about iraq's nuclear program.

what is the deal, if there are such talks, what is the deal that you would accept, mr. president? >> well, first of all, those are reports in the newspaper. they are not true. but our goal is to get iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the u.n. resolutions that have been in place because they have the opportunity to reenter the community of nations. and we would welcome that. there are people in iran that have the same aspirations as people all around the world. for a better life. we hope that their leadership takes the right decision. but the deal they accept is the end of the nuclear program. it's very straight forward. and i'm glad that governor romney agrees with the steps that we're taking. there have been times, governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign where it sounded like you thought that you would do the same things we did, but

you'd say them louder and somehow, that would make a difference. and it turns out that the work involved in setting up these crippling sanctions is painstaking. it's meticulous. we started from the day we got in office. and the reason it was so important, and this is a testament to how we've restored american credibility around the world. we had to make sure that all of the counsel tris participated. even countries like russia and china. because if it's just us that are imposing sanctions, we've had sanctions in place for a long time. it's because we got everybody to agree that iran is seeing so much pressure. and we've got to maintain that pressure. there is a deal to be had. and that is that they abide by the rules that have already been established. they convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program. they are very intrusive. but, over time, what they can do is regain credibility. in the meantime, though, we're

not going to let up the pressure until we have clear evidence that takes place. and one last thing, just to make this point. the clock is ticking. you know? we're not going to allow iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere. and i've been very clear to that. because of the intelligent coordination that we do with a range of countries, including israel, we have a senls of when they would break out which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program and their clock is ticking. we want to make sure if they do not mete the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon. >> governor? >> i think from the very beginning, one of the challenges we've had with iran is they have looked at the administration and felt that the administration was not as strong as it wanted to be. i say that because from the very

beginning, the president has campaigned four years ago and said he'd meet with all the world's worsz actors, he'd sit down with chavez and kim ju kim jung ill, with castro. and they looked and thought, well, that's an unusual honor to receive from the president of the united states. and then the president began what i've called an "apology tour" of going to various nations in the middle east and criticizing america. i think they looked at that and saw weakness. then, when there were disdenside in the streets of teheran, the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and israel, they noticed that, as well. all of these things suggested, i think, that, hey, we can keep on pushing along here. we can keep talks going on. we're just going to keep on spinning cespin

ing center fujs. now, there's some 10,000 center fujs. that's unacceptable for us. it's essential for a president to show strength from the very beginning. to make it very clear what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. an iranian nuclear program is not acceptable to us. and the way to make sure they understand that is to have, from the very beginning, the tightest sanctions possible. they need to be tightened. our diplomatic isolation needs to be tighter. we need to put the pressure on them as hard as we possibly can. if we do that, we won't have to take the military action. >> bob, let me just respond. nothing governor romney just said is true. starting with this notion of me apologizing. this has been probably the biggest whopper during the course of this campaign. every reporter that has looked

at it has said governor, this is not true. when it comes to tielgtenning sanctions, look, as i said before, we've put in the toughest, most crippling sanctions ever. the fact is while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a chinese state oil company that was doing business with the iranian oil sector. i'll let the american people decide, judge who's going to be more effective and more credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions. and with respect to our altitude about the iranian revolution, i was very clear about the murderous activities that had taken place and that was contrary to international law and everything that civilized people stand for. and so the strength that we have shown in iran is shown by the strength that we've been able to immobilize the world. when i came into office, the world was divided.

iran was insurgent. iran was at its weakest point economically, militarily since many years. we are going to continue to keep the pressure onto make sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon. that's in america's national sbresz. that will be the case as long as i am president. >> we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. we should not have wasted these years to the extent they've been able to spin and get this cloeszer. number two, the reason i call it an apology tour is because you went to the middle east and you flew to egypt and to saudi arabia and to turkey and iraq. >> and by the way, you skipped israel, our closest friend in the region. but you went to other nations. and by the way, they noticed that you skinned israel. you said that america had been dismissive and devicive. you said that america had dictated other nations.

mr. president, america has not de dictated other nations. we have freed other nations from dictators. >> bob, let me respond. if we're going the talk about trips that we've taken, you know, when i was a candidate for office, first trip i took was to visit our troops. and when i went to israel as a candidate, i didn't take donors, i didn't attend fundraisers. i went to the holocaust museum there to remind myself of the nature of evil and why our bond with israel will be unbreakable. and then i went down to the border towns of staroke which experienced missiles reigning down from hamas. and i saw families who showed me missiles near their children's bedrooms and i was reminded what that would mean if those were my kids.

which is why as president, we funded an iron dome program to stop those missiles. so that's how i've used my travels. when i travel to israel and when i travel to the region. and the central question, at this point, is going to be who is going to be credible to all parties involved? and they can look at my track record whether it's iran sanctions, whether it's dealing with koucounter terrorism, whet it's supporting religious rights. they can say that the president of the united states and the united states of america has stood on the right side of history. and that kind of credibility is precisely why we've been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues facing the world right now. >> what if, what if the prime minister of israel called you on the phone and said our bombers are on the way. we're going to bomb iran.

>> let's not go into hypotheticals of that nature. our relationship with israel, my relationship with the prime minister of israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way. this is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of last-minute -- >> so you're saying that just wouldn't happen. >> that's not going to happen. but let's go back to what the pthd w president was speaking about which is what's happening in the world and the president's statement that things are going so well. look, i look at what's happening around the world. and i see iran four years closer to a bomb. i see the middle east with a rising tide of viviolence, chao tumul. i see jihadist just about to spread. hard to precisely measure, but it's clear they're there. they he they're very strong. i see syria with 30,000 civil januarys dead.

i see our trade deficit with china larger than -- growing larger every year, as a matter of fact. i look and the world and i don't feel that don't feel that you see north korea continuing to export the nuclear technology, russia said they're not going to follow luger anymore and back away from a nuclear proliferation treaty we had with them. i don't see our influence growing around the world. i see our influence receding and in part with our withdrawal and commitment to the military and the way it ought to be and in part because of turmoil with israel. i mean the i received a letter from 38 democrat senators saying that tensions with israel were a real problem. they asked him, please repair the tension, democratic senators, please repair the damage in the party. >> governor, the problem is that on a whole range of issues,

whether it is the middle east, whether it is afghanistan, whether it is iraq, whether it is now iran, you have been all over the map. i mean, i am pleased that you now are endorsing our policy applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the iranians to end their nuclear program, but just a few years ago you said that is something you would never do. in the same way that you initially opposed a timetable in afghanistan. now you're for it although it depends. in the same way that you say you would have ended the war in iraq, but recently gave a speech saying that we should have 20,000 more folks in there. the same way that you said that it was mission creek to go after gadhafi. when it comes to going after osama bin laden, you said, well,

any president would make that call. when you were a candidate in 2008 as i was, and i said if i got osama bin laden in our sights, i would take that shot. you said we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man, and you should we should ask pakistan for permission. if we asked pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten him. it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him. after we killed bin laden i was at ground zero for a memorial and talked of a young woman who was four years old when 9/11 happened, and the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers saying, peyton, i love you, and i will always watch over you, and for the next decade she was haunted by that conversation and she said to me, you know, by finally getting

billibin laden, that brought closure to me. when we too things like that, that sends a message to the world and tells peyton that we did not forget her father and i make that point because that's the kind of clarity of leadership and those decisions are not always popular. those decisions generally are not poll tested, and even some in my own party including my current vice president have the same critique as you did. but what the american people understand is that i look at what we need to get done to keep the american people safe and to move our interests forward and i make those decisions. >> let's go and that leads us. this takes us right to the next segment, governor. america's longest war, afghanistan, and pakistan, governor, you have to go first. >> you can't have the president just layout a whole series of items without giving me a chance. >> with respect, sir, you laid out quite a program there. >> that's probably true. >> i will agree. >> we'll catch up. the united states is scheduled to urn it over responsibility

for security in afghanistan to the afghan government in 2014. at that point we will withdraw our combat troops, leave a smaller force of americans, if i understand our policy, in afghanistan for training purposes. it seems to me the key question here is what do you do if the deadline arrives and it is obvious the afghans are unable to handle their security. do we still leave and i believe governor romney, you go first. >> we're going to be finished by 2014. when i am president we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. the commanders and the generals there are on track to do so. we have seen progress over the past several years. the surge has been successful. the training program is proceeding at pace. there are now a large number of afghan security forces, 350,000, that are ready to step in to provide security, and we're going to be able to make that

transition by the end of 2014. so our troops will come home at that point. i can tell you at the same time that we will make sure that we look at what's happening in pakistan and recognize that what's happening in pakistan will have a major impact on the success in afghanistan, and i say that because i know a lot of people just feel like we should just brush our hands and walk away and i don't mean you, mr. president, but some people in our nation feel that pakistan is being nice to us and that we should walk away from them. pakistan is important to the region and the world and us because they have 100 nuclear warheads and they're rushing to build more. they will have more than great britain in the relatively near future. they have the network and the taliban existent in their country so a pakistan that falls apart becomes a failed state would be of extraordinary danger

to afghanistan and to us. we're going to have to remain helpful in encouraging pakistan to move towards a more stable government and rebuild a relationship with us and that means that our aid that we provide to pakistan is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met. for me i look at this as a need to help move pakistan in the right direction and also to get afghanistan to be ready and they will be ready by the end of 2014. >> mr. president. >> when i came into office we were still bogged down in iraq and afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. we ended the war in iraq and refocused our attention on afghanistan and we did deliver a surge of troops facilitated in part because we ended the war in iraq. we are now in a position where we have met many of the objectives that got us there in the first place. part of what had happened is we had forgotten why we had gone. we went because there were

people who were responsible for 3,000 american deaths. so we decimated al qaeda's core leadership in the border regions between afghanistan and pakistan. we then started to build up afghan forces, and we're now in a position where we can transition out because there is no reason why americans should die when afghans are perfectly capable of defending their own country. that transition has to take place in a responsible fashion. we have been there a long time. we have to make sure that we and our coalition partners are pulling out responsibly and giving afghans the capabilities that they need. what i think the american people recognize is after a decade of war, it is time to do some nation building here at home. what we can now do is free up some resources to, for example, put americans back to work especially our veterans. rebuilding our roads, bridges,

our schools, making sure that our veterans are getting the care they need when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury and making sure the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place. i was having lunch with a veteran in minnesota who had been a medic dealing with the most extreme circumstances when he came home and he wanted to become a nurse and he had to start from scratch. what we have said is let's change those certifications. the first lady has done great work with the organization called joining forces, putting our veterans back to work. and as a consequence, veterans unemployment is actually now lower than the general population. it was higher when i came into office. those are the kinds of things we can now do because we're making that transition in afghanistan. >> all right. let me go to governor romney. you talked about pakistan and what needs to be done there.

general allen, our commander in afghanistan says that americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are supported by pakistan. we know that pakistan has arrested the doctor who helped us catch osama bin laden. it still provides safe haven for terrorists yet we continue to get pakistan billions of dollars. is it time for us to divorce pakistan? >> no, it is not time to divorce a nation on earth that has 100 nuclear weapons and on the way to double that at some point, a nation that has a serious threat from terrorist groups within its nation as i indicated before the taliban network. it is a nation that's not like others and does not have a civilian leadership that is calling the shots there. you have the i.s.i., the intelligence organization, probably the most powerful of three branches there, and you have the military and then you have the civilian government.

this is a nation which if it falls apart, if it becomes a failed state, there are nuclear weapons there. you have got terrorists there who can grab their hands on those nuclear weapons. this is an important part of the world for us. pakistan is technically an ally, and they're not acting very much like an ally right now, but we have work to do, and i don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with pakistan is strained. we had to go into pakistan. we had to go in there to get osama bin laden. that was the right thing to do. that upset them. there was obviously a great deal of anger even before that. we're going to have to work with the people in pakistan to try to help them move to a more responsible course than the one that they're on and it is important for them and it is important for the nuclear weapons and it is important for the success of afghanistan because inside pakistan you have a large factions that are

taliban and they're going to come rushing back into afrg when we go and that's one of the reasons the afghan security forces have so much work to do to fight against that. it is important for us to recognize that we can't just walk away from pakistan. we do need to make sure that as we spend support for them, that this is tied to them making progress on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society. >> let me ask you, governor, because we know president obama's position on this. what is your position on the use of drones? >> well, i believe that we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. it is widely reported that drones are being used and drone strikes, and i support that entirely, and feel that the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends. let me also note as i said earlier we're going to have to do more than just going after

leaders and killing bad guys important as that is. we're also going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and islamic extremism. we haven't done that yet. we talk a lot about these things. you look at the record. you look at the record of the last four years and say is iran closer to a bomb, yes. is the middle east in tu tumult, yes. is al qaeda on the run, on its heels, no. are israel and the palestinians closer to reaching a peace agreement. no. they haven't had talks in two years. we have not seen the progress we need to have and i am convinced with strong leadership and an effort to build a strategy based upon helping these nations reject extremism, we can see the kind of peace and prosperity the world demands. >> keep in mind our strategy wasn't just going after bin laden. we created partnerships throughout the region to deal with extremism, in somalia,

yemen, in pakistan, and what we have also done is engage these governments in the kind of reform that is are actually going to make a difference in people's lives day-to-day, to make sure that, the respect and dignity that every nation receives has shown and make sure they have a free market system that works. across the board we're engaging them in believe capacity in these countries and we stood on the side of democracy. one thing i think americans should be proud of, when tunisians began to protest, this nation, me, my administration, stood with them earlier than just about any other country. in egypt we stood on the side of democracy. in libya we stood on the side of the people. as a consequence, there is no

doubt that attitudes about americans have changed. there are always going to be elements in these countries that potentially threaten the united states, and we want to shrink those groups and those networks and we can do that, but we're always also going to have to maintain vigilance when it comes to terrorist activities. the truth, though, is that al qaeda is much weaker than it was when i came into office and they don't have the same capacities to attack the u.s. homeland and our allies as they did four years ago. >> let's go to the next segment because it is a very important one. it is the rise of china and future challenges for america. i want to begin this by asking both of you and mr. president, you go first this time. what do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country? >> well, i think it will continue to be terrorist

networks. we have to remain vigilant as i just said. with respect to china, china is both an adversary but also a potential partner in the international community if it is following the rules. so my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that china plays by the same rules as everybody else. i know americans have seen jobs being shipped overseas, businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade, and that's the reason why i set up a trade task force to go after cheater when is it came to international trade. that's the reason why we have brought more cases against china for violating trade rules than the previous administration had done in two terms, and we have won just about every case that we have filed, that has been decided. in fact, just recently steel workers in ohio and throughout

the midwest, pennsylvania, are in a position now to sell steel to china because we won that case. we had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic tires or cheap chinese tires, and we put a stop to it, and as a consequence saved jobs throughout america. i have to say that governor romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case, said this wouldn't be good for american workers and that it would be protectionist. i tell you, those workers don't feel that way. they feel as if they had finally an administration that was going to take this issue seriously. over the long-term in order for us to compete with china, we have also got to make sure that we're taking care of business here at home. if we don't have the best education system in the world, if we don't continue to put money into research and technology that will allow us to create great businesses here in the united states, that is how we lose the competition and

unfortunately governor romney's budget and his proposals would not allow us to make those investments >> governor. >> first of all, it is not government that makes business successful. it is not government investments that make businesses grow and hire people. let me also note that the greatest threat that the world faces, the greatest national security threat is a nuclear iran. let's talk about china. china has an interest very much like ours in one respect. that is they want a stable world. they don't want war. they don't want to see protectionism. they don't want to see the world break out into various forms of chaos because they have to manufacture goods and put people to work and they have about 20 million people coming out of the farms every year, coming into the cities, needing jobs, so they want the economy to work, and the world to be free and open. so we can be a partner with china. we don't have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form. we can work with them. we can collaborate with them if they're willing to be

responsible. they look at us and say is it a good idea to be with america? how strong are we going to be? how strong is our economy? they look at the fact that we owe them a trillion dollars and other people 16 trillion in total including them. they look at our decision to cut back on our military capabilities. a trillion dollars. the secretary of defense called these trillion dollars in cuts to the military devastating. it is not my term. it is the president's own secretary of defense that called them devastating. they look at america's commitments around the world and see what's happening and say, okay, is america going to be strong? the answer is yes. if i am president, america will be very strong. we'll also make sure that we have trade relations with china that work for us. i have watched year in and year out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because china has not played by the same rules in part by holding down artificially the value of their currency it holds down the prices of their goods

and means our goods aren't as competitive and we lose jobs. that has to end. they're making progress. they need to make more. that's when day one i will label them a currency manipulator which allows us to apply tariffs where they're taking our jobs. they're stealing our intellectual property and patents and designs and technology and hacking into our computers and counterfeiting our goods. this he have to understand, we want to trade with them, we want a world that's stable, we like free enterprise, but you have to play by the rules. >> governor, let me just ask you, if you declare them a currency manipulator on day one, some people are saying you're just going to start a trade war with china on day one. isn't there a risk that that could happen? >> well, they sell us about this much stuff every year, and we sell them about this much stuff every year. it is pretty clear who doesn't want a trade war and there is one going on right now that we don't know about, a silent one, and can they're winning. we have enormous trade imbalance

with china and it is worse this year than last year and worse last year than the year before, and so we have to understand that we can't just surrender and lose jobs year in and year out. we have to say to our friends in china, look, you guys are playing aggressively. we understand. this can't keep on going. you can't keep on holding down the value of our currency, stealing our intellectual property, counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world, even into the united states, and i was with one company that makes a valve in process industries, and they said, look, we were having some valves coming in that were broken and we had to repair them under warranty and looked them up and they had our serial number on them and then we noticed that there was more than one with that same serial number. there were counterfeit products being made overseas with the same serial number as a u.s. company, the same packaging, these were being sold into our market and around the world as if they were made by the u.s. competitor. this can't go on. i want a great relationship with

china. china can be our partner. that doesn't mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs on an unfair basis. >> governor romney is right. you are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas because you invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas, and that's your right. that's how our free market works. i have made a different bet on american workers. if we had taken your advice, governor romney, about our auto industry, we would be buying cars from china instead of selling cars to china. if we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax code so that companies that earn profits overseas don't pay u.s. taxes compared to companies here that are paying taxes, that's estimated to create 800,000 jobs. the problem is they won't be here. they'll be in places like china. if we're not making investments in education and basic research, which is not something the private sector is doing at a sufficient pace right now and has never done, then we'll lose

the lead in things like clean energy technology. now, with respect to what we have done with china already, u.s. exports have doubled since i came into office to china, and actually currencies are at their most advantageous point for u.s. exporters since 1993. we absolutely have to make more progress. that's why we're going to keep on pressing. when it comes to our military and chinese security, part of the reason we were able to pivot to the asia pacific region after having ended the war in iraq and transitioning out of afghanistan is precisely because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future. we believe china can be a partner. we're also sending a very clear signal that america is a pacific power that we are going to have a presence there, we are working with countries in the region to

make sure, for example, that ships can pass through, that commerce continues, and we're organizing trade relations with countries other than china so that china starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards. that's the kind of leadership we have hone in the region. that's the kind of leadership that we'll continue to show. >> i just want to take one of those points, again, attacking me is not talking about an agenda forgetting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country. the president mentioned the auto industry and somehow i would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere. nothing could be further from the truth. i am a son of detroit. i was born in detroit. my dad was head of a car company. i like american cars. i wouldn't do anything to hurt the u.s. auto industry. my plan to get the industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. it was president bush that wrote the first checks. i disagreed with that.

i said they need to go through managed bankruptcy and in that process they can get government help and guarantees but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess costs and the debt burden they had built up. fortunately -- >> that's not what you said. >> you can take a look. >> governor romney, you did not -- >> you you can take a look at the op-ed. >> you did not say that you would provide government help. >> i said we would provide guarantees and that was what was able to allow the companies to go through bankruptcy and come out of bankruptcy. under no circumstances would i do anything other than to help this industry gets on its feet and the idea that has been suggested that i would liquidate the industry, of course not. of course not. >> let's check the record. >> that's the height of silliness. >> let's check the record. i would never say i would liquidate the industry. >> the people in detroit don't forget. >> that's why i have the commit at some time make sure our industries in this country can compete and be successful. we compete successfully with anyone in the world and we're going to. we're going to have to have a

president, however, that doesn't think that somehow the government investing in car companies like tesla and fiskar making electric battery cars, these are not research, the government investing in solyndra. i want to invest in research. research is great. provided funding to universities and think tanks, great, but investing in companies, absolutely not. that's the way to go. >> governor. >> i am still speaking. i want to make sure we make america more competitive and do those things that make america the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators, businesses to grow, but your investing in companies doesn't do that. it makes it less likely for them tom here because the private sector will not invest in a solar company. >> i am happy to respond to you -- i think anybody out there can check the record.

governor romney, you keep on trying to air brush history. you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the u.s. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. you said they could get it in the private marketplace. that wasn't true. they would have gone through a -- >> you're wrong, mr. president. >> no, i am not wrong. i am not wrong. >> people can look it up. >> people will look it up. more importantly, it is true that in order for us to be competitive we're going to have to make smart choices right now. cutting our education budget, that's not a smart choice. that will not help us compete with china. cutting our investments in research and technology, that's not a smart choice. that will not help us compete with china. bringing down our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military is not asking for, before we even get to the debt that we currently have, that is not going to make us more

competitive. those are the kinds of choices that the american people face right now. having a tax code that rewards companies that are shipping jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing here in the united states. that will not make us more competitive. the one thing that i am absolutely clear about is that after a decade in which we saw drift, jobs being shipped overseas, nobody championing american workers and american businesses, we have begun to make real progress. what we can't do is go back to the same policies that got us into such difficulty in the first place. that's why we have to move forward and not go back. >> i couldn't agree more about going forward. i certainly don't want to go back to the policies of the last four years. the policies of the last four years have seen incomes in america decline every year for middle income families, now down $4,300 during your term. 23 million americans still struggling to find a good job. when you came to office 32

million people on food stamps, today 47 million people on food stamps. when you came to office over $10 trillion in debt and now $16 trillion in debt t hasn't worked. you said by now we would be at 5.4% unemployment. we're 9 million jobs sort of that. i have met some of those people. i have met them in appleton, wisconsin. i met a young woman in philadelphia who is coming out of college, can't find work. ann was with someone just the other day that was just weeping about not being able to get work. it is a tragedy in a nation so prosperous as ours that the last four years have been so hard, and that's why it is so critical that we make america once again the most attractive place in the world to start businesses, to build jobs, to grow the economy, and that's not going to happen by just hiring teachers. i love teachers. i am happy to have states and communities that want to hire teachers, do that. by the way, i don't like to have

the federal government pushing its way deeper and deeper into our schools. let's the states and localities do that. i was a governor. the federal government didn't hire our teachers. i love teachers. i want to get our private sector growing and i know how to do it. >> i think we all love teachers. gentlemen, thank you so much for a very vigorous debate. we have come to the end. it is time for closing statements. i believe you're first, mr. president. >> thank you very much, bob, governor romney, and to lynn university. you have heard three debates, months of campaigning and way too many tv commercials. now you have got a choice. over the last four years we have made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us two prolonged wars, record deficits, and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. governor romney wants to take us back to those policies. foreign policy that is wrong and reckless, ecic